ArcsSparks Posted March 12, 2011 Share #26 Posted March 12, 2011 Looks good to me. Their not profiling, their performing a check point for ALL motorcycles. Profiling would be stopping only hd's with long haired operators! After reading their state stats for fatalities, etc it looks like a good thing. Troopers get some overtime and hopefully they take some folks off the road that don't need to be there, fine the ones that aren't legal, and have a good day to those that are squared away. of course you see a problem you advocate harrassing one group of at the expense of another. when they target all drivers than they have done there job. keep handing over your freedoms and someday you or your desendants will ask where are all the motorcycles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspen60 Posted March 12, 2011 Share #27 Posted March 12, 2011 Just my two cents, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I see no reason why an officer can't stop any motorist that is running any vehicle they think is not safe or a driver that is not sober. That being said, I still think they need probable cause to stop, inspect or harrass any one. I know i'm in the minority but I have a problem with the supreme court ruling that road blocks are legal. Would it be okay if they stop only sports cars? how about if they need to stop only blacks or if we strech this to its end, how about if they need to check out all ranch style houses. I think the founding fathers might have a little trouble with road blocks. Yes I understand, having been a comercial driver for twenty-five years, inspecting commerce is a whole different animal. Someone on this forum has a signature that sums up all my feelings pretty well, it says something along these lines--- A goverment big enough to give you everything you need (and big enough to make you always feel safe) is big enough to take everything you have away. I'm hoping this isn't too political, sorry moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6pak Posted March 12, 2011 Share #28 Posted March 12, 2011 Living just down the road from Savannah, I have seen this on the news quite a bit in the past couple days. A couple points. First, they are checking for DOT helmets. While I'm not going to go into whether or not I agree with Georgias helmet laws, we do have them. More and more I have seen the "novelty" helmets on the road. These state right on them that they are not for protection in a crash. So I guess on paper that I would agree with the CP for correct helmets. However, the money would imho be better spent on a few public service announcements to try to make the public aware of Bikes and Bikers. If you run across SR144 from Ft Stewart to the I95 interchange, you will see at least 5 billboards letting folks know that bikes are out there. The only Problem with this is that this is on a state highway but is going thru a Federal Installation. So for the most part the only people who will ever see these signs have already seen them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the CPs don't need to raise our awareness, We're the ones that ride to start with. I'm pretty sure that we are already aware. Use the money to make the public better aware thru advertising. Just my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scarylarry Posted March 12, 2011 Share #29 Posted March 12, 2011 Living just down the road from Savannah, I have seen this on the news quite a bit in the past couple days. A couple points. First, they are checking for DOT helmets. While I'm not going to go into whether or not I agree with Georgias helmet laws, we do have them. More and more I have seen the "novelty" helmets on the road. These state right on them that they are not for protection in a crash. So I guess on paper that I would agree with the CP for correct helmets. However, the money would imho be better spent on a few public service announcements to try to make the public aware of Bikes and Bikers. If you run across SR144 from Ft Stewart to the I95 interchange, you will see at least 5 billboards letting folks know that bikes are out there. The only Problem with this is that this is on a state highway but is going thru a Federal Installation. So for the most part the only people who will ever see these signs have already seen them. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the CPs don't need to raise our awareness, We're the ones that ride to start with. I'm pretty sure that we are already aware. Use the money to make the public better aware thru advertising. Just my I'm not going to debate the right or wrong on this.. If that is a Federal highway which it is, I wonder if the state is not getting Federal money for this...I have not seen a yes or no on it.. I know here in Tenn. the Feds. do reimburse the state for projects that follow under the Feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flb_78 Posted March 12, 2011 Share #30 Posted March 12, 2011 I'm not going to debate the right or wrong on this.. If that is a Federal highway which it is, I wonder if the state is not getting Federal money for this...I have not seen a yes or no on it.. I know here in Tenn. the Feds. do reimburse the state for projects that follow under the Feds. This is the 2nd or 3rd time this has come up on the board that I recall and it is being funded by Federal dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scarylarry Posted March 12, 2011 Share #31 Posted March 12, 2011 Ok I didn't see...Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_in_london Posted March 12, 2011 Share #32 Posted March 12, 2011 When we have had this sort of thing in the UK, there was never any doubt that it was motorcyclists (or groups of motorcyclists) who were being targeted, not types of transportation - which it is when goods vehicles are tested. Years ago, when you could make money as a motorcycle courier, the police would give out completely false press reports to justify a 'clampdown' on riders. This REINFORCED the impression of law breaking bikers because they saw riders being stopped by the police (no smoke without fire etc.). To add insult to injury, you were given a form to present at a local police station. Nobody had anything to fear, except you were working in a time sensitive industry and could randomly lose 15-20 minutes, plus get a 45minute chore. What stopped it was organised action - getting on the radio - and a campaign to get everybody that presented documents at the station whose officers gave the form to - and handing them over one at a time. I use a motorway to get somewhere quickly and without delay - that means being told to stop is unwelcome. Does anybody really believe this is not about social profiling - or that it would not be perceived that way by the public ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1bummer Posted March 12, 2011 Share #33 Posted March 12, 2011 I have mixed feelings about it all. On one hand I've seen plenty vehicles on the road that definitely shouldn't have been. I've been behind the wheel or handlebars of a couple of them myself. I've gotten older and now see the error of my ways. Well some of them anyway. I've seen vehicles that are so rusty that the springs are no longer attached. Others with such bad shocks that the vehicle never stops bouncing. Still others that are way over loaded by morbidly obese drivers and/or passengers. Like the Geo that my overweight brother and his over weight wife drove. These are just a few of the example I can think of that make me feel that random stops of vehicle, not just one mode of transportation or another, should take place and make people more aware of their and others mortality. Or at the very least, the LEO's should stop them and give them a quick once over and give them a fix it ticket if needed. Especially if it may indanger the lives of others who share the road with them. But then on the other hand, I feel as many others do. We, as Americans, have a certain inalienable right to travel freely without restriction. In other words, if they (LOE's/Government) don't have just/probable cause to pull me over, let me alone. Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Found here http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4 Also: CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. Found here http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm Thanks, Bill Don't Tread on me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeWa Posted March 12, 2011 Share #34 Posted March 12, 2011 Looks good to me. Their not profiling, their performing a check point for ALL motorcycles. Profiling would be stopping only hd's with long haired operators! After reading their state stats for fatalities, etc it looks like a good thing. Troopers get some overtime and hopefully they take some folks off the road that don't need to be there, fine the ones that aren't legal, and have a good day to those that are squared away. (sarcasm) I agree. Authorities should be able to inspect any vehicle at any time. Especially motorcycles. In fact I think they should be allowed to come into any bikers home and search for illegal activity or counter band. After all you have nothing to fear if you are squared away and legal. Just think of the crimes that can be prevented and bad guy biker criminals that can be apprehended. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfoster Posted March 12, 2011 Share #35 Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Here is some food for thought. City of Indianapolis v Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court found that roadblocks and checkpoints conducted for "primary purpose" of "uncover(ing) evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing" violate the Fourth Amendment. Roadblocks should be directed toward administrative purposes, such as insuring highway safety or where appropriate policing the Nations borders; they must not be motivated by "the general interest in crime control." Thus so called "drug checkpoints," staffed with drug-sniffing dogs and conducted for the primary purpose of discovering and interdicting illegal narcotics, were unconstitutional. The Court did note that if exigent circumstances were present, an appropriately tailored roadblock whose primary purpose was crime control would almost certainly be permitted. Of course, if police uncover evidence of criminal wrong doing at a valid roadblock, they may seize the evidence and arrest its possessor. This may be or may not be the case that allows Ga State Patrol to conduct a tailored checkpoint for motorcycles. Looking through my '06 book of Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook, this is all I found on this perticular issue. If one goes to the Georgia State Patrol's website there's an article on the home page on their reasons for the checkpoint. Edited March 13, 2011 by jfoster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlyons Posted March 14, 2011 Share #36 Posted March 14, 2011 So did they write tickets for loud pipes or did they just check for proper paperwork and lights,tires and so on? I plan to head to Helen in May and will change my plans if it means changing my pipes. Plenty of other states are glad to get our vacation money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaStar Posted March 14, 2011 Share #37 Posted March 14, 2011 ABATE of Georgia has been talking about this for months now. The NHTSA got a 70,000 dollar federal grant to do the "safety" stops. There were 2 that day. One on I-95 and one on I-75. The grant is enough money for 6 stops in 2011. These consisted of 2 of the 6 stops. There were no citations written as one of the checkpoints got shut down due to weather. Go here and look around. There is a ride to the Capitol to protest these stops on the 23rd. http://www.abatega.org/ Education is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddog170 Posted March 14, 2011 Share #38 Posted March 14, 2011 Well I will say this; A few yeas ago they did something like this around here. They stopped ALL vehicles and found some nasty things. Most of the bikers were 100% legal, a small percent had some tickets. Around here only about 75% of four wheel drivers were legal, a good amount of the remaining 25% had suspended licenses, or no insurance. I think that random stops are a great idea, just stop ALL vehicles. To single one type of private vehicle is not right, in my opinion. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ediddy Posted March 14, 2011 Share #39 Posted March 14, 2011 Hey Arcs&Sparks, I didn't take anything out of context. I just wanted to know what you meant by the statement "Look it up, two of the biggest is loud pipes and insurance lobby." You need to make statments that have some truth to them or you don't have any credibility. I challenge you to name one instance of an insurance lobby doing something to get motorcycles off the road. If insurance companies didn't want motorcycles on the road why would more and more insurance companies be developing insurance products for motorcycles. Even Safeco, one of the most conservative companies in the United States is now insuring motorcylces. If you had asked anyone in the insurance industry when Safeco would be insuring motorcycles they would has said never, and you're crazy for even mentioning such a thing. So before you go off half cocked you make sure you know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Owl Posted March 14, 2011 Share #40 Posted March 14, 2011 Let's try and keep it civil.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcsSparks Posted March 14, 2011 Share #41 Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Hey Arcs&Sparks, I didn't take anything out of context. I just wanted to know what you meant by the statement "Look it up, two of the biggest is loud pipes and insurance lobby." You need to make statments that have some truth to them or you don't have any credibility. I challenge you to name one instance of an insurance lobby doing something to get motorcycles off the road. If insurance companies didn't want motorcycles on the road why would more and more insurance companies be developing insurance products for motorcycles. Even Safeco, one of the most conservative companies in the United States is now insuring motorcylces. If you had asked anyone in the insurance industry when Safeco would be insuring motorcycles they would has said never, and you're crazy for even mentioning such a thing. So before you go off half cocked you make sure you know what you are talking about. did they or did they not put a stop to Mytle Beach bike week (thru regulations) and many others are curtailing activites due to difficulty in finding insurance to cover the event. The big events will continue but the small event just can't afford it. and the majority of states has has bills that would require motorcycles to meet a certain decibel level meaning no after market pipes. the feds want to have all motorcycles equiped with abs brakes fine for road bikes but a new rider on a offroad bike is asking to be hurt. and the very subject of this thread targeting motorcyles for "safety " check points points to what law enforcement thinks of motorcycles. and you still didn't address the other points Edited March 14, 2011 by Arcs&Sparks added content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted March 14, 2011 Share #42 Posted March 14, 2011 Well I will say this; A few yeas ago they did something like this around here. They stopped ALL vehicles and found some nasty things. Most of the bikers were 100% legal, a small percent had some tickets. Around here only about 75% of four wheel drivers were legal, a good amount of the remaining 25% had suspended licenses, or no insurance. I think that random stops are a great idea, just stop ALL vehicles. To single one type of private vehicle is not right, in my opinion. Shaun I agree with stopping all vehicles, a round here the only time we hear of a four wheeled driver not legal is after an accident or stopped for DUI. But during Americade at least one day during the week they have a motorcycle only stop on I 87. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted March 14, 2011 Share #43 Posted March 14, 2011 We all have rights, but some idots with loud pipes infringe on MY rights to the peaceful enjoyment of my home and property and many public places. If I wanted a lot of noise I could have lived or played right beside an airport. I totally agree that loud pipes and boom box stereos should be regulated! It's not your rights that are being trampled....it is the rights of others that your noise may be affecting that are being protected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryZ Posted March 14, 2011 Share #44 Posted March 14, 2011 IMHO, the issue is not motorcycle safety, it is the simple fact that politicians need to prove to their voters that they are worth keeping in office. How does a politician prove their worth? They must pass laws and/or bring money into their district. Most needed laws were passed a long time ago, leaving these guys to pass laws that piss off as few voters as possible. It is likely that if the police decided to stop every vehicle going down I-95, or any interstate, the violations found on cars, SUVs, and pick-ups would be huge. Far more then those found on the motorcycles. And I don't mean just total number, the greater percentage would be on the four-wheelers. Passing a law or regulation that affects only motorcycle riders, or hot rods, or speed boats, simply makes them look good to everyone else. We, the public, have allowed this behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Posted March 14, 2011 Share #45 Posted March 14, 2011 I recall merging with traffic and hearing this loud roar, coming up behind me at a fast clip. The guy had straight pipes, no ear plugs and a half helmet....Next step is fast forward a few years to him asking for hearing aids from some insurance company because he can't hear. Pipes have their place in traffic in my opinion but I shouldn't be able to hear the bike three blocks away. Just my opinion. But opinions are like some other things every one has one. As for profiling.... checking a bunch of bikes heading to a bike rally is a good time to check for license insurance registration etc. I have a little experience in this area and know a rally is an excellent time to find stolen bikes, illegal bikes and riders. Those who ride illigally try to hide in a crowd of legal riders. We have all rode down the road and either joined a group or been joined by other riders and have no clue who they are. After having said that it is also my experience that those who ride cruisers and touring bikes are well above board. I can't recall the last time I saw one of these bikes laying on its side, usually there is a four wheeler involved. I can not say the same for the crotch rockets however frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcsSparks Posted March 14, 2011 Share #46 Posted March 14, 2011 I recall merging with traffic and hearing this loud roar, coming up behind me at a fast clip. The guy had straight pipes, no ear plugs and a half helmet....Next step is fast forward a few years to him asking for hearing aids from some insurance company because he can't hear. Pipes have their place in traffic in my opinion but I shouldn't be able to hear the bike three blocks away. Just my opinion. But opinions are like some other things every one has one. As for profiling.... checking a bunch of bikes heading to a bike rally is a good time to check for license insurance registration etc. I have a little experience in this area and know a rally is an excellent time to find stolen bikes, illegal bikes and riders. Those who ride illigally try to hide in a crowd of legal riders. We have all rode down the road and either joined a group or been joined by other riders and have no clue who they are. After having said that it is also my experience that those who ride cruisers and touring bikes are well above board. I can't recall the last time I saw one of these bikes laying on its side, usually there is a four wheeler involved. I can not say the same for the crotch rockets however frank nothing you said is wrong but with that mentality it's like saying here Mr. politician have some of my freedom I don't need it, I'm a law abiding citizen so it doesn't effect me BUT sooner or later they will find something that will effect you. equal protection under the law didn't not apply here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hig4s Posted March 14, 2011 Share #47 Posted March 14, 2011 Hey Arcs&Sparks, I didn't take anything out of context. I just wanted to know what you meant by the statement "Look it up, two of the biggest is loud pipes and insurance lobby." You need to make statments that have some truth to them or you don't have any credibility. I challenge you to name one instance of an insurance lobby doing something to get motorcycles off the road. If insurance companies didn't want motorcycles on the road why would more and more insurance companies be developing insurance products for motorcycles. Even Safeco, one of the most conservative companies in the United States is now insuring motorcylces. If you had asked anyone in the insurance industry when Safeco would be insuring motorcycles they would has said never, and you're crazy for even mentioning such a thing. So before you go off half cocked you make sure you know what you are talking about. The IIHS released a report in 2007 suggesting that certain types of motorcycles be either banned or restricted from use on public roads, specifically sportbikes, after lumping together several different types of non-sport motorbikes into makeshift categories, allegedly to skew the crash data in favor of its argument. The 2007 report mirrored a similar IIHS study released in 1987, which was claimed by the IIHS to be based on findings in the famous Hurt report motorcycle crash study, and which was used to influence a U.S. Sen. into proposing a law that would have mandated horsepower limits for bikes sold in America. Dr. Hugh H. (“Harry”) Hurt, Jr., the noted author of the report, called the 1987 IIHS study "sloppy" and "fatally flawed".[/url] Citing its similarities to the 1987 report, AMA called the 2007 IIHS report "...a bike classification shell game". An AMA news release stated: "We beat the IIHS sportbike ban [in 1987], and we even got Sen. Danforth on our side, saying that he recognized that the AMA had the constituent interest in motorcycle safety and that his IIHS-backed bill was a 'dead-end street.'". Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations, said of the 2007 report: "This kind of flawed report, passed off as scientific research, has the potential to do great damage. At the very least, it can create false perceptions we’ll have to fight for years. And at worst, it could lead to restrictive laws that have no basis in reality.”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Posted March 14, 2011 Share #48 Posted March 14, 2011 It does effect me, because I have to pay for his hearing aids through increased insurace rates for medical. Same for the slolen bikes recovored at check points, and unlicensed uninsured unqualified rider. I have to pay the owner of the stolen bike through priemium increases and his medical bills when he crashes, Like I said just my opinion, but opinions are like other things every one has one frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyRich Posted March 14, 2011 Share #49 Posted March 14, 2011 But Frank, Your not Pam..Or are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcsSparks Posted March 14, 2011 Share #50 Posted March 14, 2011 First of all "Pam" I'd like to know of a insurance plan that covers hearing aids. I have a hearing loss but it ain't from motorcycles an M-16 will take your hearing about as fast as anything out there and 4 years of teaching Basic rifle markmanship did the trick. Second I have no problem with "safety Checks" as long as bikes aren't the only ones being stopped everything you said is true as long as bikes aren't the only ones targeted Oh I looked again Your from Canada you have "free" health care> So cost isn't a problem huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts